MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101529597 · doi:10.4000/studifrancesi.28708

Aa. Vv., «Le moyen français», 55-56

2006· article· es· W3101529597 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Colombo Timelli

Bibliographic record

VenueStudi Francesi · 2006
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval European Literature and History
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bidler publient ici les actes du Colloque international sur «Le bestiaire, le lapidaire, la flore» qui s'est déroulé à l'Université McGill (Montréal) les 7-8-9 octobre 2002. 2Le volet 'bestiaire' comprend neuf contributions. 3CRAIG BAKER (De la Version courte à la Version longue du «Bestiaire» de Pierre de Beauvais: nature et rôle de la citation, pp.7-22) souligne comment les deux versions, l'une remaniement de l'autre, se distinguent par l'emploi des citations.Si la Version courte utilise des citations du Physiologue, la Version longue (avant 1260) renvoie plutôt à l'autorité biblique.Loin d'être secondaires, ces deux procédés relèvent de la légitimation même du discours des deux auteurs. 4GIOVANNA BELLATI (Les animaux dans le «Traité en forme d'Exhortation» de Jean Parmentier, pp.23-42) étudie le poème que Jean Parmentier a composé en 1529, pendant son expédition vers Sumatra.Elle y analyse la terminologie générale adoptée pour désigner certains animaux (belues, bestes, bruts, éventuellement accompagnés d'adjectifs), puis deux animaux en particulier: l'alouette et la baleine; si le symbolisme de l'un est proche de celui de la tradition lyrique, la description de l'autre est tirée de l'expérience directe de l'auteur: dans les deux cas, c'est pourtant l'interprétation morale qui prime.5

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudi FrancesiSame topicMedieval European Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207